Synthesis and characterization of rutile titanium dioxide/polyacrylate nanocomposites for applications in ultraviolet light‐shielding materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rutile titanium dioxide (TiO2)/poly(methyl methacrylate‐acrylic acid‐butyl acrylate) nanocomposites were synthesized via seeded emulsion polymerization and characterized by Fourier transmission infrared, dynamic light scattering, X‐ray diffraction, ultraviolet–visible (UV–vis) spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and thermogravimetric analysis to study their UV‐shielding property. The effects of the nanoseed types, surfactant concentrations, and functional monomer amounts on the polymerization conversion, particle size, emulsion stability, and morphologies of the resulting nanocomposites were investigated. The dependence of UV‐shielding performance on the nanoparticle content and dispersion was also explored. The optimized results are obtained with 2 wt% of TiO2 nanoparticles addition, and the effectiveness of UV shielding is significantly increased by using the synthesized rutile nano‐TiO2/polyacrylates, for which the nanocomposite coating with a thickness of 200 μm could block up to 99.99% of UV light (≤350 nm) as confirmed by UV–vis spectrometry. POLYM. COMPOS., 36:8–16, 2015. © 2014 Society of Plastics Engineers
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".